Al's gonna pull it out at the last minute

[Stoid]

Or so says so many people I talk to. Everyone seems to feel that when push comes to shove, and they are actually faced with making the real decision, the American public just COULDN'T be that stupid.

There were two essays in this week's New Yorker that were absolutely dead on, nailed it to the wall. The second makes quite the case for giving Al a big kick in the head for the way he fucked this up by trying to hard to please too many. In trying to be the just right temperature, he's been coming across as too hot or too cold, depending on your point of view. And I fear that's true. While I feel comfortable with where Al is coming from (I like him, always have, ever since he became VP), and I trust for the most part what he would actually try to do as prez., I understand the need he feels to try and appeal to everybody, and how that has made some people feel uncomfortable with him. And it makes me sad and mad.


But the first essay is the one that really says it all, calmly, clearly, and IMNSHO, irrefutably. It addresses the question: how is this decision is being made, issues or personality?

Some (brief- chill, mods! Whatever is in brackets is paraphrasing, not quoting) excerpts:

Is it issues? Then it's Gore, because he's

"Shown himself to be more fiscally responsible [proposes spending less of the supposed surplus] more socially responsible [more of that spending on social needs, less to individual consumption] and more egalitarian [his plans would] ameliorate inequalities of wealth while Bush's would exacerbate them."

"Bush has offered few clues (regarding his foreign policy) except to say that he would build a missile-defense system whether or not it was technically workable or strategically advantageous (italics mine) and he opposes [our presence in Haiti, all 23 of us]"

"As for the superiority of Gore's command of the issues, this is not a matter of opinon-or, if it is, everyone's opinion is the same, even (to judge from his defensive jokes) Bush's: Gore knows more, understands more, and has thought more, and more coherently, about virtually every aspect of public policy, domestic and foreign, than Bush has."

As far as experience, "Gore is also the superior candidate." [All Bush has done in his life is fail at the oil business, sort of succeed at baseball business where he was just a front man and his "success was due largely to family connections and the use of public funds, and the states power of eminent doman in building a stadium. [the governor of Texas is a weak office] which he has held during an unchallending period cushioned by unprecedented national prosperity."

[Gore's experience has been long at the national level and] it is fair to say, distinguished. (And here we have several paragraphs talking about how his experience is better than just about anyone's outside of actual presidents' , and better and more active than alot of them, and certainly it could be said that he's been the most active and successful vice-president in history.

Bush's superiority seems to be personality, which is very narrowly defined for this election. it "apparantly excludes, if not intelligence itself, then such manifestations as intellectual curiosity, analytic ability, and a capacity for original thought. all of which Gore has in abundance and Bush not only lacks but scorns" It also seems to exclude both physical and political courage, whihc the article explains that Gore has and Bush doesn't.

It goes on to breakdown the whole dignity/credibility thing. It goes into detail, which we've all seen many times, about Gore's eexaggerations and what they sprang from. It then goes on to say that the attempts to paint Gore as a liar spring from Clinton as a liar and the whole impeachment mess. It's essentially trying to paint Gore with Clinton's brush, exaggerating his exagerrations into some moral issue.

Then:

"Bush uttered inaccuracies [during the debates] that, unlike Gore's falsify the underlying essence of his point-as, for example, when he said that Gore was outspending him in the campaign, when the reverse is true, to the tune of fifty million dollars" and he claimed to fight for patient's rights bills that he actually tried to veto! And there is more.

So in the end, "personality" comes down to likability, which is a matter of taste.

Later on:
"much of the public seems to have developed a thirst for passivity, a thirst that Bush is eager to slake."

Talking about the debates:
"To caricature them both Gore was the smart bully, Bush a hapless tattletale. Neither attribute is attractive, but it may turn out that fear of the first will outweigh contempt for the second. In that case, "personality" will definitively have triumphed over "issues" and the transformation of the presidency of the United States into the presidency of the student council will be complete."

Right on, brother! Sing out! And say it ain't so!!


Pick it up and read the whole thing.

(And to the mods: I really did not overquote. I was very careful to paraphrase most of what I did quote, so don't freak!)

And so...given all this...it just isn't possible that the American public will make such a horrendous mistake. I refuse to believe it. And I am sending good and positive vibes to the universe and to my fellow Americans, that I trust them to do the right thing. the smart thing, the compassionate thing, the only thing that makes any kind of sense, and elect Al Gore our next President. YAY!!!!!

stoid

Stayin' positive.

[blastfurnace]

Bush...man, what a bummer THAT guy is. And to add insult to injury, it looks like only 45%-49% of registered voters will actually vote. I just don't get it.

Let's face facts people. Bush may be vaguely charismatic, but he don't know SQUAT! Was I the only person watching the debates?

How can we, as a nation, possibly elect this guy? He runs on a platform touting his integrity, then admits to being an alcoholic, a cocaine user, and a drunk driver. What if he had killed someone on his lil' joy ride? Would he cover THAT us as wee (to "prtect his daughters")? Thank goodness he got Jesus and he's all cured now.

He doesn't even understand his own budget policy. For that matter, he can't remember how many people he put to death last year.

Don't get me started about foreign policy.

But...maybe Stoidela and I are missing something.

Why would *you* elect this nimrod?

[SPOOFE]

He runs on a platform touting his integrity, then admits to being an alcoholic, a cocaine user, and a drunk driver.

It seems Mr. Gore's mental state is infectious. Bush admitted to none of that. He never even came close. The problem with your sentence is twofold: the word "being" and the mentioning of cocaine use. He admitted to having BEEN an alcoholic, a habit which he claims to have kicked (more power to him in that case). He admitted to having been a drunk driver, but given the fact that he had already been an alcoholic and not exactly having been the best example of American responsibility, this is hardly surprising.

He never admitted to cocaine use. However, he DIDN'T deny it. I guess silence equals condemnation in the eyes of the public, but I've always disliked jumping to conclusions.

However, your statements about "what he admitted" to are inaccurate, at best.

[Danielinthewolvesden]

Well, MSNBC just had a poll- announced GORE was ahead, overall, but only by 2 % points.

umm, Spoofers, my mom having been an alcholic- you are one until you die (which she did, haveing not stopped drinking)
-so Bush is still an alcholic- just one that has had not "a drink today"- for many, many days.

[divemaster]

I'm afraid your wishful thinking has gotten the better of you. Do you really think Gore has erased a 3-6% deficit in two days? Nope. From MSNBC website:
Florida — one of Tuesday’s biggest prizes, with 25 electoral votes — was long expected to go to Bush, in part because his younger brother Jeb is its governor. But Gore has seized a two-point lead (48 percent to 46 percent) there, according to Monday’s MSNBC/Reuters poll

Florida, Daniel, Florida.

Or were you referring to some other poll? I've been surfing the news sites for the last hour and haven't seen a poll that shows Gore ahead.

[SterlingNorth]

Reuters (http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20001106/ts/election_leadall_dc_11.html):

The key battleground states of Pennsylvania and Washington also trended for Gore. Florida, arguably the most crucial state of all, was still too close to call with Gore two points ahead.

[blastfurnace]

Originally posted by Danielinthewolvesden

umm, Spoofers, my mom having been an alcholic- you are one until you die (which she did, haveing not stopped drinking)
-so Bush is still an alcholic- just one that has had not "a drink today"- for many, many days.

My point exactly. G.W. IS an alcoholic. I'm not saying he will drink again. And saying I was "inaccurate at best?" George DID admit to being arrested for drunk driving and DID admit to being a habitual alcohol abuser (or, in popular parlance, an "alcoholic") and, yes, did not deny cocaine use...so I was a little iffy on one of three points.

The point is..this man has built his whole image on being filled with integrity. The truth is he is not sterling. It is ridiculous that people are going to elect this man because "he will bring dignity to the white house."

No-one is perfect. I know I couldn't run for president. But Bush's only "strong" point was his questionable "integrity". He certainly knew nothing of the issues. Now that integrity is gone.

SPOOFE Bo Diddly, why would you vote for this man? He has no platform (at least, not the HE understands) and no integrity.

[Mahaloth]

Maybe the public isn't so stupid to elect George W.

Maybe you guys are just wrong. Did that ever occur? Maybe the majority(so to speak) has different core beliefs than you and they feel the Georgie will represent them better. I guess we'll see tonight.

My prediction: Bush wins.

[Dinsdale]

And I thought the thread was about Big Al's Rolling Stone photo. Or, how can he top "The Kiss"?

[vanilla]

Ah Dinsdale, ya beat me to it. I thought it was something risque.
Not that I'd *want* to see Al pull it out. (no way)

[Falcon]

divemaster -

The Zogby poll has Gore leading 48%-46%, nationwide. I'll see if I can't hunt down a link.

[IzzyR]

Originally posted by divemaster
Florida, Daniel, Florida.

Or were you referring to some other poll? I've been surfing the news sites for the last hour and haven't seen a poll that shows Gore ahead. Try this (http://www.voter.com/home/news/article/0,1175,2-15360-,00.html). Dan is right.

[ElvisL1ves]

Stoidela, great summary, thanks. I see this election that way exactly. I would only add a comment about broad resentment of the Republicans and their behavior while in control of Congress these last 6 years. That has been little discussed, but it showed up at the polls 2 years ago, and I don't think many people have forgotten. I expect Gore to ride a lot of coat-tails of the anti-GOP vote today.

Zogby/MSNBC/Reuters has Gore AHEAD 48-46 NATIONALLY this morning ( http://www.zogby.com ). This is the poll that the right-wingers have been trumpeting as the "most accurate" for the last few years. Zogby has Gore taking Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Washington, but has California TIED (??? Watch that one).

Others vary, but a variety of tracking polls do show a late surge toward Gore. That may have been masked by the practice of most of them of using 3-day or 4-day averaging to reduce some of the erratic quality of daily polls - the ones coming out now are entirely after the hiding-the-DWI story.

[blastfurnace]

Originally posted by Mahaloth
Maybe the public isn't so stupid to elect George W.

Maybe you guys are just wrong. Did that ever occur? Maybe the majority(so to speak) has different core beliefs than you and they feel the Georgie will represent them better. I guess we'll see tonight.

My prediction: Bush wins.

Gosh, Mahaloth, no-one siad YOU were stupid. No-one said anything about stupid.

But...what are George's core beliefs? Compassionate conservatism?
Is THAT why the number of people exectuted in his state has increased 10 fold since he was elected?
Is THAT why, when he talked about executing three men, he couldn't stop himself from giggling?
Is THAT why if you are homosexual you will get kicked out of the military without benifits?
Is THAT why he chooses to represent only the wealthy?
Is THAT why he feels "air polution is not a problem in this country?"
Is THAT why he will DO NOTHING to preserve what little environment we have left?
Is THAT why he would prefer women die getting coathanger abortions?
Is THAT why his ecomnomic policy ignores 99% of the population?
Is THAT why he calls at risk children "children who cannot learn?"
Is THAT why he lied to his daughters, and the country?
Just because he "found" jesus don't make him a saint, y'all.

Why is this man running? It has nothing to do with core beliefs. I wish it did.

This isn't about right and wrong. The country is nearly evenly split right now. (or at least the 45% of registered voters who might actually vote). It's about the good of the country. George Bush just doesn't have the skills needed to lead. Hell, he can invent all the goddamn core beliefs he wants..that doesn't make 'em real or pertainant to the wealfare of the country.

Anyway, far from you being stupid, I think you are right, Mahaloth.

[JustAnotherGuy]

Stoidela, that was one of the most unbiased and even handed statements I've ever read

Why vote Bush?

First of all, this isn't a spelling B, it's a run for the President of the United States. GW Bush has his issues and he stands behind his positions, making some enemies along the way. Al Gore has no positions any more. He used to, I remember detesting his tree-hugging ways, which would have probably been enough to get the Nader supporters to support him. But he is just a ping pong ball now, bouncing back and forth to whatever group wants to hit him.

Of course, I expect Dems to make as much an issue of GWs cocaine use and alcoholism as the Reps made of Clinton's "I didn't inhale" pot use. But remember, it backfired against the Reps, both elections. People were tired of politics as usual, so keep spouting that nonsense and see how the public really feels about dirt, especially OLD dirt.

More about GW, he has strong religious beliefs and this country has seen enough of an exodus from any kind of morality over the past eight years to make them absolutely sick about it. Clinton was extremely popular as president, and yet the people spoke and created a Republican Congress. Why? Because Republicans are tough on crime and high on morality, two things the Democrats have shown a continual lack of, leading, in some voters minds to such things as Columbine and other school shootings. These things were unheard of years ago... in pre-Clinton years.

The majority of Americans are against the atheists in this nation who have made the First Amendment into their personal religious flag. It is waved around in an attempt to devoid this Country of religion, instead of it's intended use to protect religion.

The one issue that Gore has clearly in his favor in this election is the abortion issue. If that was my primary concern for this nation, I would probably go with Gore. However, I am willing to gamble that a GW Bush White House will not be enough to overturn Roe v. Wade. Plus, I know some people are very emotional about the issue, but I believe it's time is fading as a centrist issue to base your vote upon. Roe v. Wade wasn't overturned in twelve years of Republican White House under Reagan/Bush, it is very unlikely to be overturned under 4 years of Bush/Cheney.

Gore has his 'lockbox'. No real plan to 'save' Social Security, a plan that is doomed because a Democratic Congress traditionally yanked money out of it's surplus funds over the years to pay for pet projects. A system that has millions of dollars raped from it's coffers every year because some idiot's on the Hill decided we should use those funds for a national welfare program for the 'disabled', which included alcoholics and drug addicts. A system that needs to A. reflect current life expectancies by moving retirement out to about 70; B. will probably require additional taxation above the current 12.4% of all payroll; C. needs some degree of privatization, a long term exit strategy that will force investment of a portion of each paycheck while continuing to cover those who have been led by their Country to count on a system that the same leaders that promised it to them have driven to the point of bancruptcy.

Al Gore has a plan for Medicare... we aren't sure what it is, he seems to speak more about GWs plans than his own. Instead of discussing a plan that will work, he believes he knows GWs plan better than GW and has figured out how that plan won't work. He wants socialized medicine, we know that, we also know that it isn't as high quality as the system we have now. I can also personally attest to the FACT, knowing someone in the elderly care profession, that Medicare turns down patients more than any HMO I have ever been with. GW is going to permit HMO's, which may be expensive, but they are good and complete health care, unlike the government option. GW is going to include medication in Medicare.

Al Gore's 100,000 teachers. Just a number, thrown out there like the 100,000 federal police of Bill Clinton. No deployment plan, no sources (100,000 unemployed teachers where?), just a number and a sentiment that we all share. Bush realizes that education is run at the State and Local government level, not the federal level. He is offering them some funding, letting them continue to make decisions, and if they come up short in three years, he will let the marketplace fix the wrongs of the education system. He accepts that the federal government can't be everything to everybody.

Al Gore's big military budget. Al Gore claims that he is going to spend more on the military than Bush. Meanwhile, neither has made public the numbers, so until then it is all alot of rhetoric. However, Bush continues to say the military is not in a ready status. Gore swears it is. Yet Gore is willing to spend more money than Bush on something that he says is in great condition... can someone explain this to me?

Al Gore on the economy, save the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge that few of us will ever see from GW and his oil refinery, but it's okay to mine for natural gas in the same area and build a natural gas pipeline all the way down through Alaska. Did you ever read his paper about the global warming effect on rabbits in South America? Further, do you believe that the Party paid for by Local Union XXX is going to hurt the automobile industry to stop building SUVs?

Al Gore on the budget surplus, he simply has the WRONG attitude that the money belongs to the government. I know some left thinkers believe the same, that the government doesn't tax us XX%, they let us keep XX%; we are, and hopefully will always remain a capitalist, entrepreneurial country when it comes to economics. I know there is a divide on this issue, but what can I say, I'm right, you're wrong. Call it McCarthyism or whatever you want, but we are not now and will never be a Socialist or Communist economy. We did not get to the position we are in today by harboring such well-intentioned but misplaced views.

Experience, Al Gore has been a Senator and a Vice President. GW is the governor (key decision maker, executive officer) of the BIG state of Texas, which borders this whole other country. From what I have heard, he has done one hell of a job down there.

So, maybe that will give you a little food for thought that Bush is at least as good a candidate as Gore on the issues.
You may not agree with his position on the issues, but he does have positions on the issues.

[KSO]

The Zogby poll is quite possibly the most inaccurate poll out there--he only polls during the day. Who's home during the day? People who don't work--these people tend to vote Democratic. He also shows BUSH up 2 in California, so go figure. I think it's pretty clear Bush will win the popular vote, but, as everyone has been saying, the electoral college is up for grabs.

[Dinsdale]

It sort of amuses me to hear Dems whine about the possibility of losing the White House. Yeah, I'll be disappointed if W gets elected, but why should MY feelings be more important than the approximately half of the nation who disagree? I was really disappointed in the 80s when Reagan won twice, followed by Bush. But I have had a Dem elected the last 2 elections. I guess I'm not saying anything too earth shattering here, but if approximately half the population disagrees with you, it seems a little presumptuous to say they are WRONG or STUPID.

And if Gore is elected, all of the Bush supporters will be as disappointed as I will be if the opposite occurs. Their desires and emotions are no less real and legitimate than mine.

I find it amusing when people feel qualified to say huge portions of the population are WRONG about something reasonable people might differ over. I guess I have developed this mindset as a relatively nonconfrontational atheist. Gets a little wierd realizing that 90+% of the people in the nation/world are wrong/stupid for believing in a supernatural being.

[Shatzi]

On the Bush's history thing...it's not so much that he actually did cocaine, was a drunk driver, etc. that bothers me. It's the fact that he has this criminal record, yet still he can run for president. I mean, if you get someone who wants to be a teacher, nurse, whatever who even has the SLIGHTEST dent in their past, they are going to have a HELL of a time trying to find a job. So what's up with that? Why can't a past drug user get a job as a elementary school teacher, but Bush, who has QUITE a history himself, can run for PRESIDENT of the United States!?

Also, I don't like the fact that he wants to push his religeous beliefs on everyone. I admit I don't closely follow everything the guy says or read all the articles, but it doesn't seem like he's very liberal. He's probably all against gay marriages and the like, and obviously, there's the abortion issue. It's like, he thinks everybody should have the same beliefs as he, and the only way to impose this is to become president. I know that's probably not the case, but still, I'm sure it's somewhere in his mind.

All through elementary school we've been taught and have taken pride in the fact that 'America is a FREE country'

Free, as in we should be free to make our own descisions about our own bodies. We should be free to marry who we want. We should be free to practice, or choose not to practice, religeon.

I hope I'm getting a point accross.

~Shatzi~

[divemaster]

OK, it looks like I missed the Zogby poll showing Gore edging ahead; but maybe that can be forgiven, since Daniel cited MSNBC? (:)). I saw a link citing a Reuters/MSNBC poll with a 2% Gore lead, but interestingly enough, MSNBC itself doesn't seem to have it on their web site. Maybe the link has misattributed the Florida results to a national trend.

Does Zogby really have Bush up in CA?

Yeah, yeah, I know I've crossposted this, but it would be disinginuous of me to not recognize my mistake in both threads where I erred.

Moving on to the OP...
Contrary to the opinions of some on this board, voters should not be called "stupid" just because they disagree with you on political matters. I know several Gore supporters in my office, and we have a mutual respect for each other. I may think they are misguided, but I would never call them stupid for they way they will vote.

Stupidity crosses all lines, and is not correlated with political party.

[John Corrado]

Dinsdale- thank you. That's an excellent attitude, and one I try to hold as well.


Originally posted by Shatzi
On the Bush's history thing...it's not so much that he actually did cocaine, was a drunk driver, etc. that bothers me. It's the fact that he has this criminal record, yet still he can run for president. I mean, if you get someone who wants to be a teacher, nurse, whatever who even has the SLIGHTEST dent in their past, they are going to have a HELL of a time trying to find a job. So what's up with that? Why can't a past drug user get a job as a elementary school teacher, but Bush, who has QUITE a history himself, can run for PRESIDENT of the United States!?

And this "quite a history" would be?

Oh, yes. A misdemeanor DUI which was, as was par for the course for this infraction in the 70's, expunged from his record.

Of course, Al Gore having broken the law by smoking marijuana is of no importance.

Also, I don't like the fact that he wants to push his religeous beliefs on everyone.

And how is he doing that? Please, give me some specifics. I haven't seen any "You know, the heathens are going to Hell, so worship Christ!" ads from the Bush campaign.

I admit I don't closely follow everything the guy says or read all the articles, but it doesn't seem like he's very liberal.

The mind boggles.

He's probably all against gay marriages and the like, and obviously, there's the abortion issue. It's like, he thinks everybody should have the same beliefs as he, and the only way to impose this is to become president. I know that's probably not the case, but still, I'm sure it's somewhere in his mind.

My bolding.

I see. And you believe that the Democrats don't feel that way? Please tell me I'm missing the sarcasm in this post. Please.


All through elementary school we've been taught and have taken pride in the fact that 'America is a FREE country'

Free, as in we should be free to make our own descisions about our own bodies. We should be free to marry who we want. We should be free to practice, or choose not to practice, religeon.

Free, as in we should be able to choose what schools our kids attend.
Free, as in we shouldn't be penalized for trying to make money to provide for our family.
Free, as in we should be able to run our businesses without excessive government intervention.
Free, as in we should be able to make choices regarding what doctors and health plans we choose rather than having the government choose plans for us.
Free, as in we should be allowed to exercise our Second Amendment rights.


I hope I'm getting a point accross.

~Shatzi~

Yes, but I'm not sure it's the point you wanted to get across.

[Shatzi]

Okay. For one thing, that wasn't posted to be picked apart. That's my opinion, how I interperet what I absorb from the media, etc. I didn't say you have to believe it, I didn't say I'm right. Maybe I walked in here expecting the wrong thing, obviously I'm a little new and have much to learn about these forums, but for goodness sakes...don't think of me as ignorant. I know what I need to know about this election. My vote has been casted. Deal.

[manhattan]

Al's gonna pull it out at the last minute

I'm just glad that this thread is not related to the Rolling Stone cover photo.

[Freedom]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Stoidela...One of us is going to have a very rough night. I hope you don't have any money riding on Gore. The guy is a nutcase who has finally run out of time. What the hell was he doing campaigning THROUGH THE NIGHT????????? Somehow Bush was comfortable enough to get a good night's sleep.

Elvis...

I would only add a comment about broad resentment of the Republicans and their behavior while in control of Congress these last 6 years.

I guess we will see the definitive word on this tonight. I would agree that tonight is a referendum on the last 8 years. If we have a Republican President, Senate and House. Along with a majority of Governors, I think you may have to re-evaluate this "broad resentment" you are dreaming about.

I think most Americans support the impeachment hearings, think that Clinotn/Gore are corrupt, and will send the democrats packing.

Either way, we will know in only a few short hours. I'm smiling, are you?:)


Shatzi



Okay. For one thing, that wasn't posted to be picked apart. That's my opinion, how I interperet what I absorb from the media, etc. I didn't say you have to believe it, I didn't say I'm right. Maybe I walked in here expecting the wrong thing,

If you walked in here thinking this was a good place to throw out propaganda and "feel good" comments without them getting picked apart, then I guess you were expecting the wrong thing. If you post it, it is fair game for the rest of the time you post on the SD. You don't get to share your opinion here, you get to defend it.

[IzzyR]

Originally posted by divemaster
OK, it looks like I missed the Zogby poll showing Gore edging ahead; but maybe that can be forgiven, since Daniel cited MSNBC? (:)). I saw a link citing a Reuters/MSNBC poll with a 2% Gore lead, but interestingly enough, MSNBC itself doesn't seem to have it on their web site. Maybe the link has misattributed the Florida results to a national trend.The Zogby poll is identical to the Reuters/MSNBC poll. The major news organizations hire professional polling firms to do their polling for them. Reuters/MSNBC have been using Zogby during this election run.

Voter.com (http://election.voter.com/f/326/2049/10m/www.voter.com/home/pollcenter/0,1124,2--,00.html) has been linking to all sorts of polls, and any poll junkies might check there.

In addition, The Drudge Report will be posting the results of the exit polls sometime this afternoon. Good luck getting into the site.

[Stoid]

Originally posted by Freedom2
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Stoidela...One of us is going to have a very rough night. I hope you don't have any money riding on Gore. The guy is a nutcase who has finally run out of time. What the hell was he doing campaigning THROUGH THE NIGHT????????? Somehow Bush was comfortable enough to get a good night's sleep.



I'm on my way out the dorr so I can't respond to anything else here, but I wanted to remind Freedom that Clinton, who knew without a doubt that he had it locked up in 92, also campaigned through the night.


stoid

[JustAnotherGuy]

Originally posted by blastfurnace
But...what are George's core beliefs? Compassionate conservatism?
Is THAT why the number of people exectuted in his state has increased 10 fold since he was elected?

Different people have different views about who deserves compassion. To some people, hardened and proven criminals deserve our compassion, to others, unborn children deserve compassion. Two sides, One fence. Never shall they agree.

Is THAT why, when he talked about executing three men, he couldn't stop himself from giggling?

No, I think he was giggling at the ridiculous hate crime laws that was brought up by Gore about the Byrd case and Bush got to slam that lob right back in his face.

Is THAT why if you are homosexual you will get kicked out of the military without benifits?

8 years of Clinton/Gore hasn't changed that. Do you really think another 4 years will?

Is THAT why he chooses to represent only the wealthy?

Incorrect point. Do you really think that the Republican Party would have the backing it has if it only represented the top 5% of the nation's populace? Please keep the propaganda on the fantasy land thread if there is one.

Is THAT why he feels "air polution is not a problem in this country?"

You have a cite where he was quoted as saying this right? You do have it in quotes after all, would hate to see you sued for slander.

Is THAT why he will DO NOTHING to preserve what little environment we have left?

Funny how Bush's desire to protect the northwest don't count as preserving the environment, but Gore's desire to protect Alaska from oil refinery, but natural gas is okay, is in the best interests of environmental preservation. A little hint, if you use words like ALWAYS, NOTHING, NEVER, you are usually WRONG.

Is THAT why he would prefer women die getting coathanger abortions?

Yeah, I think I saw that on a billboard. :rolls eyes The only thing he has said about the abortion issue is that he is against late term, partial-birth abortions. Even most Democrats agree with that.

Is THAT why his ecomnomic policy ignores 99% of the population?

Sure it does. When he is elected, why don't you just send your extra tax refund to me. :) Do you really even believe this crap? Do you really think Republicans would have the kind of support they have if only 1% were to benefit from their programs?

Is THAT why he calls at risk children "children who cannot learn?"

Another quote... please leave the cite and we will get back to you on that one.

Is THAT why he lied to his daughters, and the country?

How many times has Al Gore lied? And about STUPID things. If you had a DUI, would you run about bragging? Thank God he didn't or we might think he was proud of the fact.

Just because he "found" jesus don't make him a saint, y'all.

Sainthood automatically disqualifies one for political service. They all live in glass houses. You would think that the Clinton era would have taught you that everyone lives in a glass house and the public is tired of picking up the glass.

Why is this man running? It has nothing to do with core beliefs. I wish it did.

Why is Al Gore running? What plans does he really have that he couldn't get done in eight years under Clinton? Core beliefs? Jesus, show me ONE core belief that Al Gore doesn't change his mind on from day to day. Bush never wavers to the audience. He has his principles and his beliefs and whether you agree or not, he doesn't suck your ass and lie to get your vote.

This isn't about right and wrong. The country is nearly evenly split right now. (or at least the 45% of registered voters who might actually vote). It's about the good of the country.

Yes, it is, that is why Al Gore will lose.

George Bush just doesn't have the skills needed to lead.

He is the governor of the BIG state of Texas with a [Forest Gump] whole other country [/Forest Gump] right next to it.

Hell, he can invent all the goddamn core beliefs he wants..that doesn't make 'em real or pertainant to the wealfare of the country.

He invented the Republican Party and Christianity? My but you do give him way too much credit.

And people voting Republican are stupid...interesting tactic.

[Munch]

Shatzi, as much as I hate it, I have to reiterate Freedom2 here. ( ;), Freedom2.)

Easily said statements aren't so easily defended. Your vote certainly is not up for attack here - I can't picture a Doper who would chastize you for participating and exercizing your rights. But your posted beliefs are, for the simple reason that you posted them in a forum where discussion is sustenance.

As for me, I'd really like you to clarify your stance on the DUI issue. At what point does a teacher or a nurse undergo extensive criticism and observation for a misdemeanor? And how should a misdemeanor disqualify one from running for President? I'd like to point out that Bill Clinton was impeached for lying to a grand jury. If litigated and prosecuted, he could face a felony conviction.

Also, as JC pointed out, please note Gore's past drug use as well. Double standards, double standards...

JustAnotherGuy, I'm curious as to your statements regarding the governorship of Texas. "key decision maker, executive officer", and "he has done one hell of a job down there" were both statements that you made. From what I've heard (very little research on this, sorry), I've heard the exact opposite - that the Texas governorship is a VERY weak position, is responsible for very little, and what he has been responsible for, Bush hasn't exactly done a great job apart from naming one hell of a staff.

If Bush is elected, I suspect we'll see one of the most competent cabinets and WH staff in a while. But at what point does delegation of responsibility become shirking of duties? T'will be interesting, but I guess we'll have to wait until he runs again in 2004. ;)

[JustAnotherGuy]

Originally posted by Connor
Paraphrased: From what I've heard - that the Texas governorship is a VERY weak position, is responsible for very little, and what he has been responsible for, Bush hasn't exactly done a great job apart from naming one hell of a staff.

Delegation is leadership. I don't know how the position of the 'man who signs the bills' (i.e. President of the U.S.) can be a very weak position under any circumstances. But an intelligent leader recognizes that they don't and can't know everything about everything and thus they delegate. An unwise leader Al Gore :p alleges that they know everything and are flawed in both the assumption and much of their knowledge.

[Munch]

FTR, JustAnotherGuy, "Is THAT why he calls at risk children "children who cannot learn?"" is a little off. What Bush actually said during the October 3 debate in Boston was:

"[regarding at risk children] What that basically means is that they can't learn."

And the Clinton/Gore administration was a supporter of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". Cheney has made his position clear that he does not support this, and believes homosexuals have no place in the military.

[jmullaney]

Originally posted by manhattan
Al's gonna pull it out at the last minute

I'm just glad that this thread is not related to the Rolling Stone cover photo.

LOL!

Well, Gore will win Massachusetts. If only Bush had killed a girl in his car while intoxicated 24 years ago maybe he'd have a chance here.

We know Ted Kennedy. Ted Kennedy is a Senator of ours. And George Bush is no Ted Kennedy!

[Rillian]

Even if you can’t join me in voting for Al Gore, please do join me in exercising your right to vote today. This simple act is what makes our system of government so great and has enabled our democracy to endure for 224 years.

As to how I made my choice…

While a President can have an impact on the laws implemented in our nation, our system of government ensures that Congress and the Supreme Court have the final say on spending, on regulations, on the actions the government can and cannot take. Individual issues like reforming Social Security or Gun Control, will be decided by the 435 members of Congress (who can override any Presidential veto) and interpreted by the Supreme Court in light of our Constitution.

Consequently I feel the central and most important role of the President is that of leader in times of crises – both domestic and international. This is where the rubber hits the road and great Presidents are made (Kennedy and the Cuban Missile Crisis) or broken (Carter and the Iran Hostage Crisis).

I learned an important lesson as a business manager – when interviewing candidates for a position, past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior. Anyone can answer a hypothetical question correctly by simply studying and using the right buzzwords. The real test is how he/she handled a similar situation in the past.

Here is how I compare the two major candidates after my “interview”:

1. Both came of age during the turbulent Sixties and graduated from Ivy League colleges with modest achievements. From there, the stories diverge.

2. After graduation, Gore volunteered for enlistment in the U.S. Army and served in Vietnam, even though he disagreed with the war. To avoid the draft, Bush enlisted in the Texas Air National Guard. After initial training, Bush’s attendance record was so spotty that two supervisors declined to complete a May 1972 to April 1973 performance review for Bush, stating “Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of report.”

3. After Vietnam, Gore settled in Tennessee and studied religion at Vanderbilt University while working as a newspaper reporter with The Tennessean in Nashville. Bush received an MBA from Harvard and began working in the Texas oil and gas industry.

4. In 1976, Gore was elected to represent Tennessee in the U.S. House of Representatives and he would fly back to Tennessee nearly every weekend, to hold town meetings in every part of the state. In that same year, while taking a break from the oil industry, a thirty-year old Bush went to stay with his parents in Maine. He went out drinking with friends and was convicted of a DUI while driving a car with three passengers. (To me, the length of time since the DUI is not relevant, it is Bush’s age when it occurred that’s relevant.)

5. Gore was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1984 and was re-elected in 1990, when he became the first statewide candidate in modern history to carry all 95 Tennessee counties. In 1986, Bush took a two-year hiatus from the oil business to work on his father’s election campaign.

6. While Gore continued to serve Tennessee in the Senate and run for President in 1988, Bush assembled a group of partners that purchased the Texas Rangers baseball franchise in 1989. He served as general manager of the baseball club for the next five years. In an interview during this period, Bush revealed that his career aspiration was to serve as Commissioner of Major League Baseball.

7. In 1992, Gore was elected Vice-President of the United States and become one of most active and influential Vice-Presidents. Bush was elected Governor of Texas in 1994 and re-elected in 1998.


My “interview” with the candidates leads to a clear choice between an Army Volunteer / Reporter / Congressman / Senator / Vice President who has consistently made decisions that served the nation’s interests and an Oil Man / Baseball Club Owner / Governor who has frequently made decisions that served his interests. The candidate whose past behavior predicates an ability to lead our country in time of crisis is Al Gore.

Perhaps the Atlanta Constitution put in best in their endorsement of Gore on October 20, 2000:

“Admittedly, Bush would not be the first such president in U.S. history. In many ways, Ronald Reagan was also a "face" for a group of well-seasoned and influential Washington policy-makers. But on the national stage, and in meetings with foreign heads of state, Reagan at least possessed an actor's confidence that Bush utterly lacks. To put world leadership in the hands of the Texas governor would be to put a heavy load in a surprisingly fragile vessel.

“Moreover, the memoirs of important figures in the Reagan White House make it clear that the absence of strong leadership exacted a heavy price on the country. If the members of his inner circle disagreed among themselves, Reagan lacked the grounding to choose a clear path on his own. That contributed greatly to the Iran-Contra debacle, the decision to deploy troops in Beirut that led to the deaths of 241 Marines, and the runaway deficits that marked the Reagan era, among other problems.

“In the end, Gore is much more engaged in the world around him, more willing to do the work needed to comprehend a complex situation, more willing to think things through to the point that a solution is found. Bush is either unwilling to submit to that grind, or incapable of pulling it off.

“And what's worse, he appears to know it. He's running for figurehead; Gore's running for president.”

[Jaakko]

Originally posted by Freedom2

I guess we will see the definitive word on this tonight. I would agree that tonight is a referendum on the last 8 years. If we have a Republican President, Senate and House. Along with a majority of Governors, I think you may have to re-evaluate this "broad resentment" you are dreaming about.

I think most Americans support the impeachment hearings, think that Clinotn/Gore are corrupt, and will send the democrats packing.

Hmm, does this mean that Republicans might gain control of every branch of the government?
Regardless of party affiliations, I'd thínk that it is a bad thing.
It kind of defeats the purpose of a democratic system if the opposition is rendered impotent.

My knowledge of the American politics is quite limited here, so could anyone enlighten me?
How probable is this, and how much would it affect the balance of the two parties?

[Sofa King]

Those of you interested may want to take a look at the final Portrait of America (http://www.portraitofamerica.com/html/poll-804.html). The PoA has a smaller margin of error than most polls.

Last night, I was told that the "coffin nail" report indicates a strong Republican showing across the board. This is a mythical final prediction that is supposedly highly accurate and which both candidates are informed of the night before the election. Sounds like bullshit to me, but that's my buzz here inside the Beltway. The rumor mill was dead on the last two elections, but this one is closer.

All I have to say is this: the best way to turn moderate American people into Democrats faster than shit through a goose is to give the Republicans both branches of Congress, an irresponsible and uninformed Chief Executive, and an opportunity to pack the Supreme Court. If they go into a feeding frenzy of party-line legislation and administration, it's time to saddle up the donkeys again. But the damage will have already been done to some of us.

Some of you are laughing now. I'll just point out that if all three branches of our government wind up in the control of one party, then willingly or not we have all signed off on an agenda which we cannot easily interrupt. Think about that a minute.

[PunditLisa]

Stoid, it's good to see that you're passionate about your politics. I can appreciate that in a person.

I think you would be wise to channel all that energy into something positive. Have you considered running for office? We need energetic, motivated people in Washington. And I'm pretty sure they'll be a vacancy for the democratic nominee for President in 4 years...

:D


Lisa, running out to cast my vote

[Sofa King]

Jaakko, according to what I heard last night, it's going to look something like this:

Republican majority in House: anywhere from twelve to twenty seats.

Republican majority in Senate: 53-47

Republican President

Turnover in Supreme Court: most likely two (Rhenquist and Stevens) within the next year or two. Sandra Day O'Connor supposedly has health problems which may compel her retirement as well. With her exit, I think we can safely say that Roe v. Wade will be reversed by the "strict constructionists" that Bush plans to appoint.

[JustAnotherGuy]

Rillian ,

If you truly, objectively voted by 'the interview' your clear choice last election would have been Bob Dole. The clear choice the election prior would have been George Sr.

It's okay to be partisan, but when you attempt to make it look objective, it is easily rebuked.

Perhaps the Atlanta Constitution put in best in their endorsement of Gore on October 20, 2000:

“Reagan lacked the grounding to choose a clear path on his own. That contributed greatly to the Iran-Contra debacle, the decision to deploy troops in Beirut that led to the deaths of 241 Marines, and the runaway deficits that marked the Reagan era, among other problems.

With that logic, I am sure this non-partisan rag will hold the current President responsible for the deaths of those American sailors who were fueling in a known, historic area of terrorist attacks. Puh-leeze. Tax cuts accompanied by big government spending created the deficit. Talk to all those Democratic Congresspeople who wrote the bills during the Reagan administration. If Ronnie was so incompetent, you can only blame the Democrats for the inflation. However, we non-blaming-Party-politics-for-everything-that-goes-wrong majority can separate economics from economic policy of the government. The feds don't have as much control over the economy as some would like to think.

“He's running for figurehead; Gore's running for president.”

Lovely conclusion based upon a completely objective interview. [/sarcasm again]

[Freedom]

Jaakko


A little understood fact about America is that we are not a democracy. We are a Republic. I do know that I do not understand all the finer differences, but this is what I understand some of the major diffrerences to be:

It takes more than 50% to change everything. Ie: The Constitution, States rights etc....

Regardless of which party is in power, it must still govern in the frame work of the Bill of Rights.

The party in the minority can still fillibuster in order to stall and prevent legisalation. It takes a 2/3 vote to end a filibuster.

One of the nice things about our system was mentioned up above. If the Republicans get wild and cray, they will get voted out in 2 years. The same thing happened to the democrats in '94.

And, even though we are not a straight democracy, the will of the majority does seem to get paid attention to. If the majority of the country wants the Republicans in power, then the Republicans will be in power until the people change their minds.:)


BTW.....One indicator to me that this is going to be a run away race for Bush, is that Lazio is close to Hillary. I thought this was going to be a gimme seat for Hillary, much like Ted Kennedy gets his seat in Mass. If Lazio beats Hillary, I will be walking around humming.....

Ding dong the witch is dead........


for the next week or so.:)

[Shatzi]

*smirks* Thanks for the tips, guys ;) Evidently I don't have the patience and stamina to participate in these debates, but I do enjoy just being an onlooker. Perhpas that's where I'll stay from now on. A lot of you have very interesting points to bring up, and views on issues that have not been taken before. I admire the passion and resource of intellect lot of you have in arguing and defending your points. So I'll stop gushing for now and just sit quietly to watch.

Oh, and when we start talking about biology or environmental issues, I'll certainly have something intellectual to say ;)

arrivederci!

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally posted by Freedom2
Elvis...

I would only add a comment about broad resentment of the Republicans and their behavior while in control of Congress these last 6 years.

I guess we will see the definitive word on this tonight. I would agree that tonight is a referendum on the last 8 years. If we have a Republican President, Senate and House. Along with a majority of Governors, I think you may have to re-evaluate this "broad resentment" you are dreaming about.

I think most Americans support the impeachment hearings, think that Clinotn/Gore are corrupt, and will send the democrats packing.
[/B]

Forgotten the 1998 and '99 elections already, have you?
1998: GOP confident up until the last day or so of a 30-seat or so GAIN in the House, consistent with mid-term electoral history. Late coalescence of anti-vendetta feeling caused a significant LOSS of GOP seats, and almost the margin of majority. That didn't keep 'em from going ahead with impeachment anyway, in a lame-duck session, before the chances of holding the votes together dwindled.

1999: ALL big-state governorships, and ALL big-city mayorships, up for election, and many smaller ones too, go Democratic.

2000: What's going to be so different today?

No evidence exists for your statements about "most Americans".

[John Corrado]

Rilliam- You're absolutely right. It's plainly obvious that we should only vote for candidates who have a strong past history of success.


Of course, by that token, we never should have had Abraham Lincoln (who could only get elected to Congress for a single term and was defeated for the Senate) or Harry S Truman (whose haberdashery failed completely during the 'boom' of the '20's) as Presidents; meanwhile, we should devote more time to such brilliant former Presidents as Ulysses S. Grant (who proved himself an innovative, competent, courageous leader during the Civil War, only to run the most corrupt administration in all of history) and Dwight D. Eisenhower (who also proved himself a capable and courageous leader in WW2, but whose administration was not particularly notable for its leadership).

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally posted by Jaakko

Hmm, does this mean that Republicans might gain control of every branch of the government?
Regardless of party affiliations, I'd thínk that it is a bad thing.
It kind of defeats the purpose of a democratic system if the opposition is rendered impotent.

My knowledge of the American politics is quite limited here, so could anyone enlighten me?
How probable is this, and how much would it affect the balance of the two parties?

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally posted by Jaakko

Hmm, does this mean that Republicans might gain control of every branch of the government?
Regardless of party affiliations, I'd thínk that it is a bad thing.
It kind of defeats the purpose of a democratic system if the opposition is rendered impotent.

My knowledge of the American politics is quite limited here, so could anyone enlighten me?
How probable is this, and how much would it affect the balance of the two parties?

Yes, that's possible, and, given the recent irresponsible and obstructionist behavior of the Republicans while in control of Congress, I'd have to agree that it's a bad thing. On the good side, any margin of majority in either house will be slim, and that has to tend to force more of a spirit of political compromise and mutual respect than has been noted lately. But if Trent Lott and Dick Armey (don't kid yourself about Hastert actually being in charge in the House, btw) are still running the show on the Hill, and Gore is the President, you can expect more of the same, I'm sorry to say.

[Freedom]

Elvis...Elvis....Elvis............

No evidence exists for your statements about "most Americans".

Do you not get the point I was trying to make? You feel that there is a "broad resentment" about impeachment. I think "most Americans" support it. (now)

My point was, we don't really have to stress all that long. I agree that today is a basically a referendum on the last 8 years, Clinton/Gore, Impeachment and the animosity in Washington.

If Gore wins, I will concede that your point is correct. If the Republicans sweep, will you concede that you may be wrong?



BTW.....I am still smiling:)...only 45 minutes until the exit polls should hit Drudge.

[Guinastasia]

Freedom-yeah people are annoyed by the impeachment...by the fact it was brought up in the first place.
He lied about a FUCKING BLOWJOB....for crying out loud, look at Newt Gingrich.

[xenophon41]

John C, congratulations on completely mis-stating or misunderstanding Rillian's point regarding the past performance of the candidates; that "...past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior."

Notice that in his/her post, Rillian never addressed the relative successes of the candidates' pasts, but instead examined the focus and character of their respective actions.


BTW, very nice first post, Rillian. Welcome to the SDMB.

[JustAnotherGuy]

Since 1942, I don't have the site, every time the Washington Redskins won the game before a Presidential election, the incumbent party won the election, every time they lost, the challenging party won. Well, all you Democrats can just blame the Arizona Cardinals. (They had an easy game set up to keep the Democrats in power and they blew it!)

[Jaakko]

Freedom2,

A little understood fact about America is that we are not a democracy. We are a Republic.

Yes, I know, but the difference isn't that big.


It takes more than 50% to change everything. Ie: The Constitution, States rights etc....

Regardless of which party is in power, it must still govern in the frame work of the Bill of Rights.

How about ordinary laws, ones that comply to the Constitution, do they require more than a simple majority?
You can do a lot of damage with those as well.

Constitutional matters aren't decided with a simple majority here in Finland either (actually I believe the process is harder here than in the US), and I suspect that it's the case with other European countries as well.

[ElvisL1ves]

*** EARLY INDICATIONS ***

Turnout is very heavy, at record levels in many locations, despite bad weather in the Midwest:
http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/07/election.turnout/

Heavy turnout "traditionally" favors Democratic candidates.

Stay tuned.

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally posted by Freedom2
Elvis...Elvis....Elvis............

No evidence exists for your statements about "most Americans".

Do you not get the point I was trying to make? You feel that there is a "broad resentment" about impeachment. I think "most Americans" support it. (now)

Freedom2....Freedom2....Freedom2....

I repeat, no evidence exists for your statements. You're on the verge of admitting that, by saying you think "most Americans" have changed their minds in so short a time. That's a real leap of faith.

[ElvisL1ves]

Jaakko,

Constitutional amendments here require passage by a 3/4 majority in both houses, signature by the President, then ratification by the legislatures of 3/4 of the states.

I should add, to an earlier post about single-party control, that it's not the usual situation. We Yanks have a habit of "ticket-splitting" with the intent of keeping the parties cooperating with each other, and keeping each others' views respected. For most of the time in the last 50 years or so, we've had both houses controlled by one party, with a President of the other party. That's an unwritten added leg of the "checks and balances" between the 3 branches of government (executive, legislative, judicial).

In a parliamentary system such as yours, it seems that the minority party can only complain and criticize and continually introduce no-confidence motions. Is that a fair statement?

[Tretiak]

I am not voting for either Bush or Gore, but I have to admit I find the Gore supporters Bush bashing to be pretty obnoxious. Actually it isn't the Bush bashing as much as the bashing of Bush supporters as being stupid, folks without conscious, etc.

I am only talking about some Gore supporters, not all or even most. I just wish everyone could have the same attitude as Dinsdale.

[IzzyR]

Originally posted by ElvisL1ves
Jaakko,

Constitutional amendments here require passage by a 3/4 majority in both houses2/3

[ElvisL1ves]

My error.

[JustAnotherGuy]

THIS JUST IN:

Due to an early, heavy vote by Republicans, Al Gore has conceded the Presidency.

http://www.mnbc.com/algoreconcedes

http://www.abcnews.com/algivesup

http://www.cbsnews.com/altakesabreakfrompolitics

http://www.foxnews.com/algetsamuchneededvacation

So, Republicans, go out and show your new president how much you support him. Democrats, save the gas, stay home and lick your wounds.

;)

[ElvisL1ves]

Hey, no fair! That's dirty politics! The Republicans were repeatedly told to vote TOMORROW to control the crowds at the polling places.

[Sofa King]

Damn. You're right. Bush is already celebrating.

Bush and the missus enjoying their victory. (http://www.attrition.org/gallery/politics/bush-pass-it.jpg)

At the press conference. ("http://www.attrition.org/gallery/politics/bigtoke.jpg)

[Joe_Cool]

Originally posted by blastfurnace
...How can we, as a nation, possibly elect this guy? He runs on a platform touting his integrity, then admits to being an alcoholic, a cocaine user, and a drunk driver. What if he had killed someone on his lil' joy ride? Would he cover THAT us as wee (to "prtect his daughters")? Thank goodness he got Jesus and he's all cured now....

Give it a rest, already. For cryin' out loud, Ted Kennedy DID kill somebody while driving drunk, and he's a perpetual fixture in politics. For one thing, who hasn't done something stupid in their past? I sure have. For another, that DWI arrest puts him firmly in the footsteps of respected politicians.

Anyway, he fessed right up, and he didn't repeat it. Clinton still pretends to think he didn't do anything wrong, and Kennedy is still a Lucking Fush. And Gore is as solid as a blade of grass. He gets a makeover and pretends to be somebody different every week (or every time a poll comes out) and bends whatever way the wind blows him.

[Joe_Cool]

By the way, I thought CLINTON was the one who pulled it out at the last second.


Otherwise how did the dress get stained?

:D

::running away::

[Sofa King]

The Onion is reporting that the cat is still in the box (http://www.theonion.com/onion3640/bush_or_gore.html):

"'The people have spoken,' Bush or Gore continued, 'and with their vote they have sent the message, loud and clear, that we are the true party of the people.'

"With these words, the crowd of Republicans or Democrats erupted."

[ElvisL1ves]

"It's no exaggeration to say the undecideds could go either way."

-- George H.W. (Poppy) Bush

[IzzyR]

Bush leading in Wisconsin, Oregon, and Arkansas. Gore ahead in Michigan. Florida and Pennsylvania - dead heat.

Looks good for Bush.

[Stoid]

Originally posted by Rillian


As to how I made my choice…

Snip...

“And what's worse, he appears to know it. He's running for figurehead; Gore's running for president.”

WOW....Rillian... that's one helluva way to introduce yourself to the board! You ROCK. Would you be my best friend??

Excellent, excellent....beautifully thought out, clear, true, and expressed. I bow before you!

stoid

[Jaakko]

Elvis,

In a parliamentary system such as yours, it seems that the minority party can only complain and criticize and continually introduce no-confidence motions. Is that a fair statement?

Well, since we don't have a two-party system (at the moment there's three big ones, two not quite so big ones and a plethora of smaller ones), there's practically no time when any one party (or even two) holds enough seats to force a law through.
A simple majority is required for an ordinary law to pass, after it has gone through various committees and discussions.
Usually a law passes when it has the support of two big parties (holding around a quarter of the seats) and one of the smaller ones.
Party discipline is much stricter here than in the US, so it's unlikely for controversial laws to get enough votes.
The president can also veto a law proposal, sending it back for a new vote.

A constitutional change proceeds much like an ordinary law, but the first simple majority vote only sets the proposal to "rest", until the next parliament is elected.
Then there's a new proceeding, at the end of which a 2/3 majority is needed to pass the law.

No-confidence motions are given by the parliament to the administration (ie. the ministers), but the administration can't decide on laws, they can only submit proposals for discussion.

[Freedom]

America Votes Today


The jury is still out. No final word, but from everything I have seen, the turn-out is at record levels. I saw 98% turn-out being predicted for many counties in FL, and over 70% in other states.

In addition to the leftward slide our country must stop, voter apathy is another major issue we need to face.

Go Vote!!!

[IzzyR]

Bush leading by 2% in Pennsylvania. Gore by 6% in Florida. If these numbers hold up, Bush is in.

[ElvisL1ves]

Not so fast, pardner - if Gore takes Florida and Michigan, how do Bush's remaining states add up to a win? And how did Pennsylvania switch columns so quickly? He had Gore winning there earlier today.

Of course, Drudge could be just BS'ing us to get his hit count up.

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally posted by Jaakko

Well, since we don't have a two-party system (at the moment there's three big ones, two not quite so big ones and a plethora of smaller ones), there's practically no time when any one party (or even two) holds enough seats to force a law through.

Jaakko, thanks for the clarification. Apparently, real disagreements about policies get resolved between the parties in the government in private, making the actual votes a formality? If no party is in a dominant role, and the coalitions are fluid, I guess that's democratic.

[John Corrado]

Elvis-

Gore has CT, DE, DC, HI, IL, ME, MD, MA, NV, NJ, NY, RI, and VT locked for 125 votes.

Bush has AL, AK, AZ, GA, ID, IN, KS, KY, LA, MS, NE, NH, NC, ND, OK, SC, SD, TX, UT, VA and WY locked for 177 votes.

Leaving AR, CA, FL, IA, MN, MO, NM, OH, OR, PA, TN, WA, WI and WV with 207 votes open.

So if Gore adds CA, FL, *and* MI, that still only puts him at 222, and still needing to take 48 of the "open" 110- nearly half.

So Gore doesn't "lock" it by taking FL and MI.

[IzzyR]

Originally posted by ElvisL1ves
Not so fast, pardner - if Gore takes Florida and Michigan, how do Bush's remaining states add up to a win? And how did Pennsylvania switch columns so quickly? He had Gore winning there earlier today.

Of course, Drudge could be just BS'ing us to get his hit count up. Actually Bush doesn't even need Florida or Pennsylvania. Assuming Drudge's other reports about Arkansas, Wisconsin and Oregon hold up, Bush needs only 14 more electors to get to 270. Pennsylvania has 23, but there's also Delaware, Iowa, Maine, Nevada, New Hampshire & New Mexico, which have between them 27 electors.

[IzzyR]

Originally posted by ElvisL1ves
Not so fast, pardner - if Gore takes Florida and Michigan, how do Bush's remaining states add up to a win? And how did Pennsylvania switch columns so quickly? He had Gore winning there earlier today.

Of course, Drudge could be just BS'ing us to get his hit count up. If Drudge's other reports about Arkansas, Oregon and Wisconsin hold up, then Bush needs only 14 more electors. Pennsylvania has 23. But even without Pennsylvania, there's Delaware, Iowa, Maine, Nevada, New Mexico & New Hampshire in play, which have 27 electors between them.

Of course, Gore could concievably pull an upset in state that is thought to be in the Bush column (e.g. Ohio). But there hasn't been any indication of this as of yet.

I did not see Drudge say that Pennsylvania was leaning to Gore. When did you see this?

[John Corrado]

Arghh. Fuzzy math.

Add "MI" to the undecided, and change that total "unknown" to 229.

Add "MT" to Bush's total, and change that to 184.

But the basic premise is still the same.

[Rillian]

Originally posted by Stoidela

WOW....Rillian... that's one helluva way to introduce yourself to the board! You ROCK. Would you be my best friend??

Excellent, excellent....beautifully thought out, clear, true, and expressed. I bow before you!

stoid
[/B]

Thanks Stoid. And I'll be glad to be your friend. Just be clear, the end of my article is a quote from the Atlanta Consititution newspaper, not my original text.

Will you still be my friend?

[jab1]

I have read a few stories that say there are so many absentee ballots to count, we may not know who won before 11PM in the East. See y'all tomorrow.

[Stoid]

Originally posted by Rillian


Will you still be my friend?

Absolutely. The only friends I want are those who are as bright, articulate, and clearly thoughtful as you. Come sit by me.

By the way, I just heard the results up to now:

Bush: 43.6
Gore: 43.5

I am a wreck!!!

It's gonna be a looooooooooong night...but the day will dawn bright and crisp...

stoid

[SterlingNorth]

Stoid, where'd you get those numbers? I have about 15 news sites open here and I don't want to think there's some that I'm missing.

[Stoid]

but I heard them a few hours ago on MSNBC. It was with just a teesy percentage of the count.



It is Looking SOOOOOO good!!!

I'm happier every minute... Gore got every state they were saying he would have to get in order to pull it out. And he gave Geeorge a big slap in the face by pulling out his borther's state.

Now I just have to count on my fellow Californians not to blow it. I have to say I've been a bit annoid with Al that he's ignored us in terms of ads while every time I turned around I had Dubya in my face. But California couldn't possibly elect Dubya...

I'm a happy girl right now!

stoid

[SterlingNorth]

I see Flordia is faltering. Bush is leading by 1 Mil (Wash. Post), and CNN pulled it from Gore to undecided.

[Scylla]

Nader's couple of percent really seems to be hurting Gore.

[Stoid]

I just need to say that I am a fucking wreck. I HATE THIS!!!

And I can't tear myself away... Like my staring at it obsessively is going to make a difference. This is CRUEL.

[Danielinthewolvesden]

Newest news flash: Gore is ahead, and in order for Bush to win, he has to (either) win every single 'swing" state,OR, pull CA out of his ass. Gore now has PA & FLA. It is still very close, and Bush looks to win the popular vote.

[Sam Stone]

CRUEL? This is FUN! It's the best spectator sport in the world. It's like being at a hockey game with one minute left and your team down by a goal. It's nerve-wracking, but in a good kind of way.

I much prefer this to the elections we have in Canada, which are typically decided in the East before they even count the votes in the west.

As I write this, Bush is sweeping the midwest. If he takes Florida, it's all over. If he doesn't, he's still a big underdog but gaining ground.

Looking at the electoral map, I think it'll be interesting if Gore wins. The political division in the U.S. stands out like crazy looking at this, because Gore's main support comes from a handful of very populous states. Bush could win 35 out of 50 states, win the popular vote by 8 or 9 points, and still lose the election. What will that do to Gore's ability to govern, or to political stability in general in the U.S.?

[Danielinthewolvesden]

Ps- if your polls have not closed, and you have not yet voted- what are you waiting for? "Vote, dammit, it's your duty" (to paraphrase John Adams).

[SterlingNorth]

Originally posted by Danielinthewolvesden
Newest news flash: Gore is ahead, and in order for Bush to win, he has to (either) win every single 'swing" state,OR, pull CA out of his ass. Gore now has PA & FLA. It is still very close, and Bush looks to win the popular vote.

Sez who, Daniel?

[RTFirefly]

If Bush gets Florida, it isn't a lock, but it's close to it: he'd need CO, AZ, and NV, but those lean toward the GOP. And if he loses one of those, but gets IA, WI, or OR, same difference. So if Bush gets FL, the odds are definitely against Gore.

But if FL goes back to Gore after all, then Bush has to run the table to win, unless CA falls his way.

Meanwhile, they're separated by about 700K votes in the popular vote, with Bush at 23M and Gore at 22.3M.

Nah, this is tougher than a Super Bowl or a World Series. In sports, if your team loses, it's a bummer, but the world is still the same. Not here.

[Freedom]

Stoidela


I just need to say that I am a fucking wreck. I HATE THIS!!!

And I can't tear myself away... Like my staring at it obsessively is going to make a difference. This is CRUEL.


This may be the only thing we have in common. Want to hang the press guy who decided to call FL, and then bring it back to undecided? As I sit here waiting for it to finally settle down to one candidate, I just want to kill whoever made that decision. One of the talking heads actually said, "we may need actual votes to see who wins this race."


duh.....

[blastfurnace]

Originally posted by Joe_Cool
Give it a rest, already. For cryin' out loud, Ted Kennedy DID kill somebody while driving drunk, and he's a perpetual fixture in politics.


Let me look....wait, I guess I DIDN'T say I supported Kennedy! Nor, looking back at my posts, did I say I condoned this action from anyone!

[Sam Stone]

Here in Canada, it would be a mini scandal if the press called provincial election while the polls were still open, but that's what they did in Florida. They called Florida for Gore one hour before the polls closed in the earlier time zone in the state. That could well have kept many voters home.

If Florida goes one way or the other by a very small margin, it's entirely possible that an early call by the media decided the election.

[Munch]

Freedom2, what network was that on? That quote is classic! Is there any way you can find a link?

Any guesses on when FL will be certain?

[blastfurnace]

I agree with ya, Sam. I'm not sure WHAT they were thinking.

[jshore]

Originally posted by Sam Stone
They called Florida for Gore one hour before the polls closed in the earlier time zone in the state. That could well have kept many voters home.

If Florida goes one way or the other by a very small margin, it's entirely possible that an early call by the media decided the election.



Does anyone know for a fact when they actually called Florida for Gore? People seem to be implying they called it right when the polls closed, but as of 7:15pm when I went off to yoga, NPR was saying that Florida was too close to call. It wasn't until after 9pm after I got out of yoga that I heard it was in the Gore column. So, it all that I know is it was called somewhere between 45 min before the polls apparently closed in the western part and 1 hour after.

[Freedom]

I will be up forever. The whole race hinges on FL right now. Then when the vote is counted, there are still 500,000 absentee ballots to count. Does anyone know if these are included in the current totals, or if they get counted tomorrow? Unless of course they reverse calls in other states. (PA, MI)


Connor

I'm sorry, but my brain is fried. I have been clicking the remote like a possesed madman. I don't remember which head said it, and I have no link because it was on TV.

I do remember that it was a guy.


About St. Louis:

They only left polls open in the city. The state looks like it is going to Bush. However, the Senate race is a toss-up.

About FL:

I don't think they called it at 7:10. I rushed over to a friends house because I was sure FL was going to be called within minutes of the hour. I would guess that it was called closer to 7:30-45. I don't know if it effected FL results, but since Gore winning FL kept in the race, it may have effected west coast voters. Many west coasters may have changed their vote from Nader to Gore since the race was so tight.

[Sam Stone]

They're saying now that the western part of Florida had much more Bush support than the East. That would mean an early call would have hurt Bush.

[Munch]

Great! So we've ruled out Katie Couric...

Did anyone know that Nevada has a "None of the above" option?!?

::moving to Vegas::

[hardcore]

The vote is all going to come down to Florida, and the sick thing is we may not be sure for several days what the absentee vote really is.

At the very least, I hope the American people can realize how close we really are, regardless of the side of the ideological fence. Hopefully, we can support whomever the new president finally turns out to be, without animosity. Unlike the last 8 years.

Well, I can always hope.

[Stoid]

Originally posted by Freedom2
[quote] One of the talking heads actually said, "we may need actual votes to see who wins this race."


duh.....

Surpising comment from a guy who took bets on Bush winning in a landslide

You didn't think I was gonna let you forget your hubris, did you?

Silly man - everybody knows that gloating is tres unattractive.

stoid

[divemaster]

Originally posted by Freedom2
I will be up forever. The whole race hinges on FL right now. Then when the vote is counted, there are still 500,000 absentee ballots to count. Does anyone know if these are included in the current totals, or if they get counted tomorrow? Unless of course they reverse calls in other states. (PA, MI)

The way I understand it, the absentee ballots are being counted along with the poll ballots, except for the absentee ballots coming in from FL residents who are stationed (military) out of state. Those only have to be postmarked by today (well, yesterday, now). So it may be some time before it all gets sorted out. Those votes would no doubt favor Bush.

The real interesting thing about FL (and AZ) is that the senior vote went to Bush about 60-40. It doesn't look like Gore's demagoguing (sp?) on SS and medicare took hold.

[divemaster]

A squeaker, but I'll take it! :)

Stoidela, I started a thread for you in MPSIMS. That way you can have your breakdown right here on the boards, amongst your friends!

Of course, if you'd rather come unglued in the pit, I'd understand.

[TNTruth]

Well, MSNBC just gave the election to Bush by projecting he’ll win Florida. With 96% of the Florida precincts reporting, Bush leads by less than 20,000 votes out of over 5.5 million cast.

No matter who eventually wins, I hope I never hear another person say, ”My vote doesn’t matter.”

[yosemite]

I still cannot believe it. So close, so close.

And Gore is going to ask for a recount. (But from what the news says, recounts rarely make that much of a difference...) But still, I understand why Gore would want a recount.

Has this been a rocky night or what?!?!

[Zor]

:::sigh:::

I was hoping Al would get Florida and grab the presidency while Bush wins the popular vote. With the Republicans controlling the congress and senate, we might get to change our voting system with all the whining going on... too bad...

[hardcore]

Did you see this????? Florida vote official confirms 1,210 vote lead for Bush??????? This is the strangest thing I have ever seen.

[Zor]

... and some absentee and overseas votes are yet to be counted, more than 5000 in fact. Everyone is saying Republicans have the advantage here, but boy is this a close one. If there were any errors in the first counting, we may still have some fun time ahead of us...

[hardcore]

It appears to me that Gore will win the popular vote, but barring some miracle during the recount of Florida, he will lose the Electoral College vote. All in all, a supremely fascinating evening.

[jshore]

Originally posted by hardcore
It appears to me that Gore will win the popular vote, but barring some miracle during the recount of Florida, he will lose the Electoral College vote. All in all, a supremely fascinating evening.

...Which is just the opposite of what I thought was the more likely possibility (if there were to be a discrepancy between the two votes). But, boy, who in their wildest dreams could predict this. Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction!

[yosemite]

As of 5:22 am EST, Bush is ahead 987 votes in Florida.

NINE HUNDRED FRICKIN' EIGHTY SEVEN.

And there will be a recount, of course. And the military absentee vote still trickling in for the next few days (it is expected to lean towards Bush...)

THIS IS TORTURE!!!!!! PURE TORTURE!!!!!! I just want to go to sleep, but NOOOOOOO! I am sitting here in front of my computer and my TV, refreshing CNN's site, checking the vote count in Florida, and listening to talking heads on TV.


THIS IS TORTURE!!!!!!!!

[Sofa King]

I'm going to bed. Someone wake me up in four years.

[yosemite]

As of 6:18 am, Bush is up (according to C-Span's site) 1,655 in Florida.


This is so bizarre.

[Karellen]

Gore is now up in the national polls by over 200,000.

In an impromptu interview with CNN, Rob Reiner (a Gore supporter) said that this election night was too bizarre to even be in a movie. "This wouldn't even make a credible screenplay," he said. "They'd kick you out of the pitch office."

Wish someone had told him that about "North."

Anyway, the more I think about this the more it seems whoever wins this thing is gonna have a hell of a time leading such a divided nation.

[SterlingNorth]

Congratulations everyone, welcome to Hell!
While you did not notice, the Rapture occured. Why no one notice? The only person accepted into Heaven was a sweet elderly old lady in Yorba Linda, California. Everyone else, I'm sorry.

Do you think this election will end?

NO!!!

This is your future.

After the recount in Flordia, there will be a court proceeding about the Gore/Buchanan thing in Florida. Then there will be an investigation into irregularities in Missouri with the judge holding the polls open. After which each side will take alternating turns protesting each others moves in court. Things will get so out of hand, there would be five re-elections. All will be contested.

Television will turn over the airwaves to pundits, ponfonticators, bloviators, analysis experts, historians twenty four hours a day, seven days a week. Seven years from now, President Clinton (he'd still be in office) would be found dead in bed with a sixteen year old girl. Nobody would even notice or care. This is your punishment for abandoning the way of G-d.